that you can fill out and hold up. someone will bring them forward. the ou are microphones that's cn go to to ask a question in person. if you do that i would ask you both to identify yourself and your institutional affiliation if you have one, and to keep your question as brief as you can so that we can get to as many of the questions we can. ..

many folks have been thinking about a grappling with and doing a fair amount of work on. from cms's perspective we have a number of quality measurement activities in place that i would like to refer to and one when i was speaking that didn't have the time was both on the adult and the children quality measures, both of which are out there for public consumption. we are encouraging the providers and systems to use that to read a number of them actually include mental health and substance abuse, mental health services and quality measures

and we are hoping that we can begin to include some subsidy measures. they are open each year for comment, so pay attention to the notification that you get because we really do want to know whether they make sense, whether we should think about new measures, whether some of the measures we have probably should be replaced with new measures to the and so let me stop there and see if there's other folks on the panel. >> i think the quality measurement issue a statement on the health agencies are struggling with it trying to support and we had a quality measurement system for hospitals that we run. a lot of the quality measures as dr. willson was saying start to come across the boundaries with different systems. so if you are trying to look at reducing the use of hospitals, then you're looking at medicaid

and medicare and different data sets and get into that importance of starting to may be able to use information and health information to be able to access data from different systems. unfortunately from the state perspective we are hearing things dr. wilson said. a number of states are putting an electronic of records that the being left at the back of the ku for the electronically. the computers all want to have some more consistency and quality measures. >> in the apco there is a mental health indicator on the screening. last week they pulled together a small meeting in support of the proposed study that would be a round indicators for psychotherapy, psychosocial treatments, an area that needs

attention. and i think what you see is than tackling that in the next few months and that would have began to contribute to the need for measures just as we are behind the use of the h.r. and can help technologies and a whole lot of other things. >> thanks. can you hear me? mine question is related to the evidence based practice and i appreciate dr. wilson bringing up the need to use best practices and evidence based practices and thank you for your great work and i'm glad you are putting out the information on the bulletin. i'm wondering when we might expect the next step for the providers offering the evidence based practices. i know we can see some of that on the purchasing but on the

medicaid side i'm wondering with the thoughts are about that. >> two things. states have the opportunity to be a will to do that and in some places i know that states, whether they are doing it for their own volition and fee-for-service or managed care are beginning to and actually have that implementing rate of differentials based on different types of evidence based practices. should there be more of it? probably. but there are few things the would prohibit the state medicaid agencies to be doubled to -- deal to develop the rate differential from the perspective of may be paying for individual services but really moving towards payment for outcome. and again some of what we have been trying to do in the information bulletin around

quality and care coordination is try to get states -- and they have been thinking of paying for all comes versus individual services. >> i just want to add that this is a struggle not just on the mental health and addiction but mental health care generally. there are guidelines about what you should do when you get to the emergency room if you have chest pains but it's very spotty still in some places on whether that is done or not. so i think this is a struggle around taking research and then changing practice and i think certainly money matters a lot. people will do would you pay them to do. but you have to make sure the differentials are with that. that requires an investment and a critical number of people who know the new practice, can teach it and supervise it and so i think when you talk about investments and differentials you have to make sure that it supports what you want.

>> researcher at the american institute research. i have a question about mental health services that are privately financed. so much of the discussion and the concern here was understandable is it is about serious mental illness and a population publicly financed. but it seems to me there is another population that could fall into that group of not cared for with some of these approaches that you have described here in the clinical services for mental and physical health. my question is somewhat to fold. what are your thoughts about the importance of the group and

sometimes we think about teenagers in this group and that relates to the issue of gun violence as a possible outcome but other populations as well. how important is this group, what are the benefits of aiming at this group, how do you aim at that group and what do they say helps private insurers to do in order to in the way of parity? >> after running a private not-for-profit and trying to get insurance to pay for different things we have a number of individuals especially working with the schools that had fairly good coverage. but in the past it would recover the traditional services and they were not the ones the would make a big difference in terms of we need to go into the home, we needed to work directly with

the school. it just never seemed to work out. parity, the parity legislation holds a lot of promise. the issue is in terms of its implementation on the central benefits and they are much more expert at this that's where you will see the difference whether this continues to fall into the safety net. when people need more than at the office based care. when the real evidence based practices show we need to use approaches that bring together systems of care that haven't been supported in the past and the private sector. >> with respect to private

payers, a focus of the affordable care act is on the private financing of health care including mental health. of course half of the expansion is medicaid, and the other half is the new exchanges and marketplaces and requires the provision of the essential health benefits for the qualified health plans that pertains to private health insurance. the other piece reforms to the health insurance system and that is focusing its target on the health plans that have to comply with the same rules that health plans follow on the employer sponsored insurance. as a private health insurance is a chief focus of the reforms in the affordable care at.

>> if i can pick up a couple of questions on the cards that follow in the same general area. one for john and probably one for linda. one questioner asked coming into this part is for john, what's taken the administration so long to write the rules for mental illness and substance abuse. the act, and what has been the consequences of that long delay? i know some of the california newspapers have an account of a hearing and the legislature yesterday in which the insurance commissioner was lamenting his lack of tools for trying to enforce the parity restrictions or requirements with some of the private insurance firms. and then for linda, john mentioned the state flexibility about what is covered in the central benefits package.

and i wondered if the beetle health community is a little worried about that flexibility. >> john, do you want to go first? >> sure. i'm sure there are a variety of reasons why it's taken so long to get where we are today. the good news is we do have a commitment to have the regulations finalized this year to be a while i think there are certainly places where we have seen issues with commercial plans not implementing the parity as we intended, i think we have seen lots of places and lots of plans since 2010 have taken some significant strides to make sure they did comply with the parity. will we still have issues out there come the passage of for the finalization of the ranks, you bet. will we have issues out there on

the medicaid side or the alternative benefit plans? you bet. but again, i think working with the plants like the department of labor and hhs has been doing to have them understand that pretty well and then comply on the commercial side have been fairly effective. we've been working with our state partners moving forward the expansion for them to understand parity and for them to begin to plan what that is going to look like as a part of their essential health benefits. as in most cases we are providing not going to hear about the good things when the plan did the right thing and be heard above the not so good things when they didn't do the right things whether that was intentional or not. islamic i guess i should give a

warning that it's not with the alliance but of course we are worried about state flexibility. we understand the need to give states flexibility at a time when there is an expectation that they implement lots of change including hopefully, and i expect in the next few years they will all buy into the medicaid expansion. but then in turn we are a country that feels very strongly about the states' rights. and so it is a fine line i think in terms of getting them flexibility. i think the good news is that stakeholders in those communities, the national council members, all the other groups including the managed-care companies in some way have a stake in ensuring that it does the right thing and there is a lot of organizing going on in the states to make sure that happens. as the action now i think is really at the state level.

>> my name is kristen lee and limit the foundation. my question is on the excitement of the integrated care. thinking about the low population density areas how does that model look for those types of petitions coming and also more broadly what are the mental health services that can be provided with the expansion area of? >> i was wondering if linda wanted to cover this because the terrific experience around the country carrying out the institute with a lot of different areas around the country and integration. there are some real challenges in the lower density areas.

we have some rural areas that in some of those areas you get a lot more flexibility because the competition is less and you were able to accomplish an awful lot more. some of the tools we need to address the restrictions might. i think some of the experiences -- one of the most successful of the homes we have in missouri with the nine counties they have a physician consultant they've been able to work very well with primary-care providers throughout their area and have

had success on the clinical basis in terms of controlling the blood sugar levels and bringing down blood pressure and using everything they have together and pulling that. and they've gotten pretty much across-the-board very good support in the medical community in their area. we find in the urban areas it is a lot more complex and can have many more problems. >> i am a medical student at the american association of public health and my question pertains to the third outlined goal of the whip cms and primary care. i was wondering what is the model of care that has been identified or if it hasn't been identified, what are the

thoughts around the model of care that will be used to integrate primary-care and mental health care, and if it is similar to the behavioral health home, how is the behavioral health home different from the model of care of the patient centered medical home? >> terrific question. i will defer to some of the other folks on the panel for detail but we do not have the described model. part of what we wanted to do both through the health home state plan opportunity as well as a number of our innovation center grants was for the states and the providers to come back to us and say we would like to try this. some of it is based on research and some of it is yet to be. we felt it was really important that it wasn't just one model and we really did want to reinforce that it was in some

cases by directional and sometimes a was peter all health and embedded in primary care and other times a was primary care in the behavioral health and then other times it was we have the world coming of peace and we have to be creative about what we do. so, again we are fascinated to see what the next year or two is going to have where we might go permanently with that program. >> i think when you are talking about embedding mental health and primary care channeling the national institute for health they would say the model is a collaborative care model and to look at the impact work of a few years ago, that's the work that has the research. so i would just suggest that to you.

>> here is a question about young people who have an opportunity for coverage under the pca -- aca. while many are covered under their parents' insurance enticing the group seeking treatment is difficult. what type of services and activities are you pursuing to help reach out to this age group? and i will say this is beyond the group of people that are eligible under their parents' insurance there are coverage opportunities of course for all each groups under the law and l. autrey general it is that the critical element to the success of the affordable care act and people with mental illness and others might be difficult as well to get into coverage. the question perhaps is what can we do in the field to help reach

out to and enroll people into coverage. anybody want to take that one? >> i will start with it. others probably have ideas. part of what we know we need to do is to have a fairly aggressive in all my effort. so some of what we have done today in terms of the program all the way is primarily focused on children its focus on older children as well some of the efforts they have to get people eligible was quick to be important. but even if we get people eligible they aren't always going to seek services. so some of the national think tanks, some of which linda has been involved with how do you use technology to be able to get individuals but also in the

treatment process. i'm going to see this like a really old man that kind of nifty smartphone applications that are being developed are kind of interesting. i don't know if you want to say a few things about those or if others do. >> when i think about that question and i'm not sure which one the writer meant can we get healthy people to enroll so that our premiums stay under control that is a big issue in fact because they think they are invincible and the penalty for not enrolling is not that big. so when we said earlier people do what you pay them for also punishment does work and this is not much punishment. so that is a problem are not healthy people. i think in terms of the moment one of the things we are telling our members were expecting and we will be talking more and more about is the capacity to enroll

people on site and to begin to help people get to that computer and in medicaid it's going to be simple. a simplified process application, and they are going to see six people who deliver services are going to have to take this on because particularly for people who have illnesses, i think what they found in massachusetts is often people will come to the front door without coverage even though they are eligible. so i think it's going to be wonderful love first using technology. >> one of the things we're hearing from the state's during the state exchanges and medicaid expansion is that agency is working with their community providers and consumers to try to get them trained to the navigators to help people

enrolled in services to make sure when anybody comes to the door they are eligible and they can get whatever services they need. there is another issue if you recall the cost is a major reason people don't access services but 1825 is the onset for schizophrenia and the other major role to become major illnesses. the program for the increasing recognition that we can get people in the service is much quicker has the potential to break some of the cost curve but right now people have to get really ill, become severely disabled before you qualify for the benefits to get into the public system. if people have basic coverage they can get a leon and don't have to wait until they are really poor before they can get behavioral health services for the first time that is what the studies suggest is there can be positive outcomes. >> can i ask a follow-up to that? and i think you are right to break the question up.

this is one the area we've had experience. the law has already been in effect for two years? i'm wondering what the experience we've had a local level or the state level in terms of who has taken advantage of the change to maintain coverage under their parents' insurance. it's resulted in millions of newly injured young people. but have we seen and detected anything in terms of people who have mental illness? >> maybe other people will have an answer. we haven't heard from the organizations that they have coming and i think this goes towards your early intervention with bill mcfarlane and that is people don't come to the attention of the organization's until they have been ill for a number of years and are ready to go on medicaid because there is

a barrier developed in states to control access to these highly specialized services and i think when that begins to change in tandem with the insurance changing you will see insurance companies actually want to do some of these invent of consolation of community services rather than what they do now with young people developing for schizophrenia which is to pay heavily for people going in and out of the hospital basically. so i think is the combination we will begin to see. if i could add to that i completely agree. one of the major problems we've had and i've seen it over the last three decades is the transition from children to adults and the barriers in receiving services and some good work that happens when kids serve the systems as limited as they are being lost in this

canyon before individuals become eligible for adult services. we were really looking forward to at some point when misery gets the medicaid expansion that individuals who had to wait until they were at rock bottom because they had to be much qualify as being disabled that we would be able to enroll them earlier because of their income status and having subsidies in the insurance exchange and that hopefully change the state will rules with federal support in order to be able to mobilize these more intensive services and supports an order to be able to help them earlier. we know if we can help people

earlier the outcomes can be greater down the line in terms of their overall health of their employment status and how the end up being able to lead productive lives. >> we have folks waiting to ask a question. let me discuss one that was directed to dr. willson, a staffer asking about a paraprofessional definition. i would suggest you take this on line after the briefing. it's a very good question that very narrow. feel free to approach dr. wilson. >> yes, go right ahead. >> i have more of a social cultural question about mental health. i'm interested in the correlation if any between the

utilization of children and teenagers and household income so i'm wondering if you notice any trend where children or teenagers from families with higher incomes have higher utilization rates? >> i don't have the data on that but i was reading on the plane here this morning piece about over diagnosis and kids and it spoke to the issue of children that had the insurance coverage there is the higher diagnosis and that populations i don't know if that is what you are getting half but there are lots of statistics. i'm not sure if anyone else on the panel is. >> it covers people that get into the public system which means i can't answer that either

>> fine with the national health association and i'm wondering about the status of dual eligibles and the efforts to integrate primary and mental health care services. >> we do have an office on the medicare coordination, we have gone through a series of what activities that have solicited states that are interested in moving forward with developing the program. it's been slow at best and some of it is helping the states through what is the right model coming back to the model question and then some of it is around changes the states have to make on their policies in order to be able to implement the program. we have a couple states now that we have memorandums of understanding between us and the

state's and medicare and they are just beginning to move forward with the implementation, so it's getting there. it's probably not as fast as folks would like but it's getting there. >> we only have time for a few more questions and then we will get to yours. i want to ask folks to take this opportunity while you are listening to the exchange's to fill out the evaluation form in your packet. >> i'm with the american society of pharmacists. one of you mentioned we don't do a particularly good job of dealing with mental health issues in the elderly population and i was just wondering if anyone could comment on your thoughts about that given the large proportion of beebe boomers that are going to be joining that population in the next few years and the growing need in this area.

>> i know the utilization when the system drops way off the older people get and we've got within the national association and the older person's division that has been what very concerned for years about the lack of a geriatric psychiatrist and psychologist that have expertise in treating their needs as well as the capacity. there's a lot of discussion about becoming the be boomers aging into that and how they will overwhelm the work force capacity that exists in the public system. it's being talked about. i don't have a good solution. i don't know if your group is focusing on that. it's just one of the group's recognized as underutilized and they suggest that the demand is there. >> there is in your packet a paper i believe that deals with this issue which is the work force and geriatrics.

i think a place to start and inexpensive fix is medicare which pays for the inpatient psychiatric care for elderly people that has a very limited benefits, very traditional, not evidence based for elderly people and i think when people are ready to take that on we might see some more attention but that is a barrier right now. >> thank you. >> we have a question for dr. willson. >> congressional staffer wants to know what influence your organization can become a federally qualified health center. was it difficult to do and most importantly did your organization notice a change in medicaid reimbursement when you became fqhc. >> i will take those in reverse.

that was a wonderful incentive for us to take that step. it was a very difficult step. the cultures are different. the fqhc organizational rules are limited to other types of activities and self we had to work very hard to craft our organization to. we decided when we were looking around for models in the country there were a lot of places that have spun off as opposed to becoming one that there were a few like cherokee in tennessee that had done a wonderful job in terms of making that transition. we want to do differently from tennessee was retain a lot of the community-based behavioral healthcare components and the recovery model.

so putting those all together was a major challenge. we found in convincing the board we needed 50% of consumers when we looked at the border as being an organization that could help us, and structure that could help us politically and in terms of the legitimacy on a local basis and we wanted to have leadership in the communities we had to debate how to go about doing that but that struggle was paid off well in terms of making that transition. we think it works well and we would recommend it where possible. i think it's only possible in areas that don't already have an existing fqhc.

they have partnerships between the community and mental health centers and existing fqhc's and around the state so there are different ways of making this work and the organizational structure depends largely on what's already there. i would recommend the of their organizations. and we have seen in missouri that's already occurred. one of our colleagues has done that and in our area has merged the community center in 28 so we have that model in missouri that is expanding. >> this is going to be the last question that we have time for and a sort of brings us back to what several of the speakers have referenced in the

president's summit a month ago. how are you going to create an environment, the questioner asks, where individuals living with a mental illness pill free to seek the services they need and have coverage for the first time without feeling stigmatized? >> i would like to start with that because i have an opinion or point of view that may not be so popular which is i think it's happening and it's about younger people who are walking and talking in chat rooms and all kinds of social media vehicles that i can't pronounced and don't use that i know that they are out there so the stigma is generational. i mentioned the whole issue of cancer and how that change and i think this is changing and in your packet there is a piece that for people that have mental

illness they didn't list this as a barrier. it was more money and confusion about where to go that was an issue for them. i think what happened is the general public at this point who are older and have trouble interacting with people with serious mental illness i think that is one of the reasons that we embraced the state was to enable people to have those conversations but i think generation leave there is a difference and so some of it is coming out of the shadow as people like me die away. [laughter] >> and i hope not right now. >> i hope not either. we need your leadership. a few years back in the greater st. louis area a number of us came together and with the help of a wonderful foundation we

started working on how can we better integrate our services and there were a number of for mom's that were at that point and it was painful to year the response of many people where they would say i love the services and getting right now and i love my provider but it was hell getting here and we had to swim shark filled moats in order to get from one spot to another and we were given the runaround and sometimes it was like running a secret not on the door to be able to get in. we need to address that and we can certainly do that through the development of more integrated systems which have good pathways where there is no wrong door. that is easier to say than it is

to do. some of it is having good organizations that help people across the spratlys to navigate them. the health navigator systems and part of the affordable care act is hoping that navigation. we need to organize that and the communities in order to help families and helped individuals in that in the right spot because when they do, largely you hear good things happen but you also see large numbers of people that aren't getting what they need and a lot of that is they didn't survive the moat to get the right spot. >> i hope linda is right that it's a generational thing. a number of states have antistigma campaigns and activities. i think the recognition of the

bringing mental health and health together helps break down some of that stigma. one of the things we are hearing is the mental health needs of the returning veterans from the conflict is helping bring down the stigma also when states are talking about programs to meet the needs of returning soldiers and force members people come out of the woodwork for those needing to support and start a dialogue about mental health and suicide and ptsd and trauma that can broaden the discussion about everyone in the society with some of these stigma and issues so i also agree it seems to be getting better but there is a way to go. >> this is a perfect question and discussion where we started but i almost taken for granted that we are making progress has linda described and we see it every day i think evidence of

that progress. we don't want to see these discussions in the special chat rooms. we want to see it in facebook. >> i'm just getting used to it so it probably is over. there is a stigma i feel one of the most compelling slides we saw was when we saw the success and intervention from mental illnesses compared to things like heart disease. and i feel if we understand that and remember that slide and were left almost apologetic about raising the issue of mental health and general conversations and we will see it, that itself breaks down barriers and so yes there is a stigma when people with mental illnesses and the

stigma of their families feel. but we also have to realize there is a stigma that we all feel about this issue. when i see that slide and i see those numbers, i think that really does help move the conversation forward. >> i also want to underscore what karl said. i think for a family who has an adult child that developed schizophrenia worse than the stigma is navigating how to get help. and i think sometimes the more services we have, the more complicated it gets and that is what i am always afraid that. so how do you help people? my hope is that parity and the aca and the new delivery systems will help keep families involved in that difficult journey at the beginning of illness.

>> we have come to the end of our time. several banks are in order. first i want to tell you we have done a number of briefings on mental health substance use. we've never had a response like this, but i want to thank you for signaling i hope a new sensitivity and openness to try to deal with some of the gaps in the system that you've heard so eloquently identified today. i want to thank our colleagues at the lockwood johnson foundation particularly andy hyman for cosponsoring the briefing and helping in a very direct way to shape that into the terrific conversation that i think it was which brings me to the final item on the list which is i would ask you to join me in thanking the panel for the particularly good conversation. [applause]

that does not of of you from filling out your evaluation form. [laughter] thanks again. >> we are seeing in the trends there is increasing government surveillance of us, people and increase in corporate surveillance of us and at the same time, people who are exposing this are being heavily prosecuted and i think that point cannot be underscored enough so i just want to talk about that and how people are being prosecuted is that the

government is using a lot called the computer fraud and abuse act. was kind of under the plea written in 1984 and which is ironic for all the reasons you would imagine and also if you think about it was written in a time there were really no computers the same way there are today. adel lot is incredible broad the exciting really. almost anyone that touches a computer could be prosecuted under this law. so whenever you come to a page and you click the terms of service agreement its 45 pages long that you didn't read it and you don't obey those exact terms, you are in violation of the computer fraud and abuse act and face five years in prison for that. if you made a nice piece account

for your dog, share and netflix password, look at your friends hbo go account you are violating the act and face five years for every time you've done that. succumb any of us could press probably be prosecuted under this act and we are not. who is prosecuted under this and we are seeing more and more the government is using it to prosecute whistleblowers, activists. it's been used as a political weapon against an affirmation activists.

>> it would be the top ten in the nation. to put this in all zero more context, 75% of all oil production in california is done in kern county and over 50% of the natural gas that's produced in california is right here. so we are really looking at when you are in this county oil along with agriculture or the to lovkvist industries that we have and it really turns the economy.

>> a group of religious leaders this week sent a letter to the obama administration stating their opposition to a requirement that health insurance plans cover birth control. they discuss the contraceptive mandate at a news conference on tuesday >> good afternoon. i'm the director of media relations for the united states conference of catholic bishops. thank you for being here today as we release standing together for the religious freedom. this important open letter to all americans about our united effort for religious liberty. we reflect people of different

religions share a common concern. protection of conscience and upholding the first amendment guarantee that americans can live according to their religious principles. our speakers are dr. russell more, president of the ethics and religious liberty commission of the southern baptist convention the archbishop of baltimore of the chairman of the u.s. bishops' committee on religious liberty, ph.d. professor of sociology at the franciscan university of steubenville ohio, and the sissy a professor at liberty university school of law and member of the national hispanic christian leadership conference's board of directors. each panelist will speak a few words and then open the panel to questions. dr. more? >> wallen president of the southern baptist religious liberty commission.

our first freedom of religious liberty is rarely challenged with a sudden shock tactic. instead from the very beginning such intrusions on religious liberty have been in this country from the pen of a bureaucrat rather than the barrel of a tank. my baptist forebears objected in the revolutionary and post revolutionary era to the state licensing preachers to preach the gospel. this was the government said a matter of paperwork. the state license was about more than just a fee and a piece of paper. it was about a government that overstepped its bounds. whatever our challenges, america has always returned backed to the founding principles of the new republic. the religious liberty and freedom of conscience are not government grants handed out to the deserving in the mind of the government. religious liberty and freedom of conscience or any legal rights granted by the creator and they belong to all persons, not just

of those in the majority of the culture. americans are planning to gather this week for cookouts and picnics and fireworks to mark another independence day. we, a broad coalition of leaders market by calling our government back to the first freedom of the free exercise of religion for all persons. the health and human services contraceptive mandate has catalyzed this coalition. this mandate imposes heavy fines and legal penalties, organizations and businesses and individuals which do not participate in the provision of contraceptive and abortion causing drugs. the issue here is not contraception or abortion. we would all agree on those questions ourselves in this coalition. at issue is the callous disregard our government has shown for the freedom of americans to exercise their religious convictions.

we love and respect our president, president obama and the national leaders and we have appealed as citizens for the administration to respect the conscience rights. in response, our government has given us more accounting tricks. that amounted to the same mandate repeated over and over and over again. but we are not so easily hypnotized by the bureaucratic parlor tricks. our government has treated the free exercise of religion in this case as if it were a tattered house standing in the way of a government construction of a railroad there to be bought off or plowed out of the play in the name of progress. we descend from that. as a creature of the gospel of jesus christ, so liberty for me is more than the political principle. i believe, as my lord commands, that we should render unto caesar that belongs to caesar. but the conscience does not bear

the image and cannot be swept into the federal treasury by the government fiat. we cannot accept the theology lessen the government has sought to teach that religion is simply a matter of what happens during the scheduled times of our worship services and is left in the four year during the rest of the week. our religious convictions are not reduced to simply the opinions retired in our hearts and seen it. we support the freedom of conscience not only for ourselves but for all persons. we support the incursions' in the exercise of religion is that we want neither to be oppressed more to oppress others. we do not ask the government to bless our doctrinal convictions. we simply ask the government not to set itself up as the lord of our consciousness. many americans will disagree hartley about the things we

believe. but even americans of no religious faith of all have an interest in the protection of these liberties. do we really want a sort of civil society in which the consciences of the people are so easily swept aside by government action if the federal government can force organizations and businesses to pave over their own conscience to choose between being the believers and being citizens what will stop the government from imposing its will on your conscience next. so we call the department of health and human services to at the very least expand conscience protection under the mandate to cover any organization or individual with religious or moral objection to cover, provide for or enable access to the mandated drugs and services. we ask the congress to pay rent such infuses from happening in the future and we call on americans to remember the great costs the country has endured in order to achieve religious

liberty and freedom of conscience in order that we might continue these rights for ourselves and prosperity. the archbishop will forgive me if i quote martin luther know little controversy between the tradition some time ago. but nonetheless i think he and i can agree on the firm's as they apply to our government and to its audacity in curtailing the religious freedom in this case to go against conscience is neither right nor safe here we stand we can do no other. god help us. thank you. >> thank you. archbishop? >> thank you. let me say for the record that your quotation from martin luther is happily at accepted.

we are grateful to see so many leaders from other denominations and faiths including southern baptist, the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints, the national hispanic christian leadership conference, the international society for consciousness and orthodox christian and jewish leaders as well as leaders of faith based and civil rights organizations all come together to sign a statement supporting religious freedom. but whether it is one of the signatories on the letter do not hold objections to the use of contraception. yet we stand united in protest to this mandate recognizing the encroachment on the conscience of our fellow citizens. as the catholic the bishops have

said from the beginning, the underlining issue in the mandate is not about any specific teachings in fact other signatories on the letter do not share our view on contraception and probably disagree with us in many other ways. but the understand the core religious freedom issues at stake. it is fitting that the statement has been released during the fortnight for freedom which has been embraced by catholics and people of many faiths. as a show of great respect for religious freedom in the two week period that leads up to this thursday independence day. it's also fitting that the final rule on the hhs mandate was issued during the fortnight

since we are especially attentive to the religious freedom at this time. sadly the mandate divides the church into three separate camps. houses of worship on the one hand, accommodative religious institutions on the other and in addition to that, for-profit entities run by religious believers. we and the catholic church have never seen such a distinction between what we do with and the walls of the church and how we serve our neighbors. the faith by which we worship on sunday is the very same faith by which we act in the world the other six days of the week. under the now finalized rule, the for-profit institutions still received no relief or a

combination of all except with the relief that many of them have been able to obtain so far in the courts by way of preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders against the mandate would. .. >> they are still analyzing the specifics of the accommodation. this is the 100 and 10 page rule

they plan to issue a subsequent statement on the final rule once the analysis has been completed. hhs itself has noted that the final rule is similar to the 2012 proposal in addition to this ongoing analysis, the u.s. ecb will continue to seek relief from the courts and from the congress as appropriate. most appropriately recently, doug fisher and tom coburn introduced legislation in the u.s. senate called health care

conference writeback, which would provide a legislative fix to the mandate for those who object because of the moral or religious convictions. this is the identical companion bill to hr 940. legislation introduced in the house earlier this year by congresswoman diane black and others. once again we are pleased to stand with so many partners in raising continued awareness overt religious liberty concerns an hhs mandate. those present-day and the statement we have signed underscores religious freedom is

something that we all hold dear as americans doctor hendershot? >> i am and hendershot and i have spent the last 20 years working in religious colleges teaching sociology. i was thrilled because i knew that i was happy to teach an environment where i did not have to compromise supervising student internships.

this includes the health and human services mandate on human services that now threatens the protections. they provide insurance coverage that includes abortion inducing drugs it requires me, as a practicing catholic, to purchase birth control. and we facilitated access to products and services that are in opposition to our deeply held moral and religious beliefs. the mandate also manages the minor children of accommodative religious institutions like my college this includes the

abortive drugs being prescribed about their parents knowledge because such information will not appear on parents claims statements at the end of each month. last year my current employer and this is including the moral and economic concerns connected to the hhs mandate. the guidelines of hhs forced catholic force catholic institutions to choose between following their faith or providing health coverage in their employee and student health plans. our government has violated the conscience of people of faith

and infringed infringe on our rights to practice religious beliefs. in may of 2012, they said that the hhs mandate constituted a grave threat to the franciscan university in their ability to teach from the heart of the church. at that time, it was one of 12 lawsuits filed by 43 organizations, including the university of notre dame and other catholic colleges and universities. there are now over 60 total losses against the mandate has brought by family-owned businesses and have brought by nonprofit religious institutions. fortunately of those cases on behalf of family businesses, they received early rulings on the religious freedom issue and the vast majority is almost 80% that have been awarded temporary halt to the mandates. unfortunately on the nonprofit side, many of the cases, including franciscan university

skeets, have been dismissed without prejudice because the courts have claimed that the religious institutions have not yet been injured. those of us who work on catholic campuses or other christian institutions disagree. we have already been injured by this unjust mandate because our constitutional right to religious freedom have already been compromised. this includes the obama demonstration classifying religious institutions like franciscan or notre dame as religious employers who have marty compromise their latest rights. every indication that this will indicate has been given. taking into account that franciscan and other catholic colleges and christian colleges as religious employers, unless these colleges and universities are given some assurance that the religious liberty would be protected, the threat will

continue. rejecting the claims of religious liberties and it is likely that it is a misguided attempt to protect women's rights and we are forced to facilitate the participation in things like student internships at the clinics of abortion providers. similarly, catholic colleges and universities, the leaders who openly disavow the catholic faith. this is for those who are hostile to the catholic faith. if we protest on religious liberty grounds, we will be told yet again that we have no right to protest because we are not religious institutions. a current obama appointee recently wrote that when he was talking about gay rights or women's right, he was having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win. we were at a place on the establishment shifted from a legitimate desire to keep the government from entangling itself in the internal affairs

of the religious organizations through a justification of anti-religious secularism. pushing religious religion out of the public sphere. challenging religions of all faith. >> thank you, doctor hendershot. now for our final teacher. thank you all so much. according to the third american arguments in the american constitution, congress will make no law on the premises of religion or the right sarah. religious freedom is one that more people can familiarize. however, it is not only about civil rights but it is also globally recognized of the norm of international human rights law. this includes human rights. everyone has the right to freedom of conscience and religion. this includes the ability in

private or in public to manifest religious police in teaching and practice and warship. the right to religious freedom has not only been one of the cornerstones of the american legal system, it has also been the priorities of the united states foreign policy to promote and defend religious freedom. in regards religious freedom, we have been able to show respect for democracy tonight's, despite the end of the cold war. violations of religious freedom it continues to undermine

religious freedom. their other forms of religious freedom, although they are not as systematic as they once were with the totalitarian regimes. they are also unjust, and they should not happen. this is the case of the mandate, which caused religious beliefs to be compromised or of being religious and moral norms and disobeying the government to mandates. american religious institutions and family-owned businesses should not be forced to pay for drugs related to contraception. they should not pay fines to uphold the religious idea. this includes religious freedom in the united states and abroad

and it is not acceptable. this includes abortion inducing drugs. the government, which undermines religious freedom norms cannot lead the cause of religious freedom globally. it was part of a great american tradition of respectful religious freedom. if this happens in america, then america will once again be able to become a leader in the global cost for the defense of religious freedom at the cost of universal and fundamental freedom human rights. you are now open to questions, or if you have a question, please speak into the microphone and state your name and to whom

you are addressing your question and finally your question. >> michael winters, national catholic reporter. will the compliance regard alysa material promoting evil, and why so much money and time being spent on the campaign, and for reverend moore, if you knew how many people had religiously-based conscious objections, why this situation of the mandate different from that, especially regarding private for profit employers. >> first of all, i think that we have to recognize what the mandate does on a national level. it is different than what i have obtained before, that is to create a three-tiered religious system. we have exempt houses of worship

and you have accommodated institutions and you have private for-profit conscientious individual business owners. that state of affairs did not exist. that state of affairs said that the new situation for religion in the united states. that alone, the change is worth spending a lot of time on this and important to recognize the suits that have been brought have not been brought through the conference, but rather brought by a whole array of institutions and charities and publishing houses and the like. because these organizations send these individuals have

recognized the religious liberty is at stake. regarding the question of the accommodation, it is a 110 page rule and there's a lot of intricacies in it until now. we have been dealing with two previous iterations of the rule and now we have the final rule and we will subject back to intense study. that work is getting underway now. >> the reason we would support those civil rights legislation and the difference from this sort of mandate from that legislation i believe can be found in the founding era in the words of the declaration of independence and i communicated it in the rights that have been held self-evident. we believe that what was being addressed in the civil rights movement was the oppression of people by an anarchic system in the american south particularly,

that ran counter to the persons protected in the constitution and what is happening here is that you have a government not allowing people to maintain a sense of human dignity and exercise of religion. which is also guaranteed in the united states constitution and is a natural right. so we believe this includes great continuity between the civil rights movement and are standing together to say that we believe in free exercise of religion and freedom for all persons, not just ourselves. >> yes, sir? >> i am from the christian post. in the letter that you asked for in the expansion of the exemption, it doesn't specify how far you think the objection should go. including the for-profit companies. are you asking for the extension to be extended that far were just as far as the organizations they represent.

and is there anything you can tell me about the timing of friday's announcement of the final rule, or were you expecting it at the end of june or were you expecting little bit early. >> who are you addressing the question to? >> i will take a crack at it unless anyone else would like to take a crack at it, which would be great. over the last 40 years under the church amendment, a great deal of thought has been given to business owners and religious organizations in matters of religious conscious and health care. it is about latitude that we are now moving away from ideally we

would like to see that be restored. >> we are working with our ministries and churches and health care. according to our own rights and teachings. so our concern was even broader than that. we want people to be able to run their businesses and their daily exit interviews according to

christian principles, should they choose to do so. >> it is ironic that the government is seeking to tell us what religion is. we have religious freedom for over 200 years, and as the archbishop mention, in ways that are rooted and grounded precisely in our religious convictions. that is a frustrating place to be at this point. >> yes, sir? >> i am tom howell and this question can be for anyone. i know that some of the plaintiffs have made a distinction between emergency contraception and oral contraception. can you just talk about why that distinction may be important and

why you define emergency contraception as abortion inducing contraception? >> well, there is not a doctor among us out here or a medical professional. but i would say that what has been approved under the mandate are all fda approved contraceptives. but in particular, by its own manufacturer and by most scientific accounts, it has been shown to induce an early abortion. and certainly, if you believe there is a human life there, it is being taken unjustly.

>> there are many persons of faith in this coalition who would have widely divergent views on contraception and abortion and other things. we think the issue here is the conscience of free exercise and religion. so there are many who would be standing with others and following their own religious convictions would not necessarily hold the same. >> thank you. >> dam? >> my question is to doctor russell moore. are you saying that you are setting up a situation in which the employees religious freedom

is against the employer's religious freedom and why should the government step in for employers rather than employees? >> well, we do not believe that the status quo restricted the freedom of employees. what we are asking is for employers not to be coerced into participating in the purchase of devices and technologies to which they have a religious objection. we really don't believe that that restricts religious liberty on the part of the employees, especially in the american culture of contraceptives with devices and medications as available as they are. instead, we believe this compromises the freedom of conscience in those employers. >> let's just say my perspective employee signed onto a church institution were a business that is being run consciously as a christian institution, one

understands that there is a kind of ambition there. i think that those employers are pretty upfront about it. especially right at the beginning. it is always a persons choice whether he or she wants to sign on to such a thing or not. >> thank you. i just wanted to know what the next that is after the open letter. are there plans to do more specific things? >> well, i think we have begun an ongoing conversation with one another. we are not going to back down on this question. i think the government has been waiting us out for some time, thinking that roman catholics

and evangelicals and others who oppose to these things will somehow go away. we are not going away. we are going to continue to speak to this. and i think the next step is to ask the administration again to reconsider as we have in this letter. also to work with members of congress toward legislative solutions. >> sir? >> this is a follow-up to the previous question. how do you respond to the government's argument that there is a difference between individuals and corporations and the individual owners of a corporation or a business have religious rights protected by the first amendment for-profit that speculation is not.

>> i would think that, first of all, it has always been understood that individuals in our country have been able to run for-profit corporations according to christian principles. if that suddenly became impossible to do. we are speaking and analogously. we are speaking by way of comparison. corporations do have a kind of an identity. they do have, even under the law, a form of what one would call a church institution by which the character of the enterprise is shaped and designed. we would certainly like to see that perspective.

>> if there are no more questions than, thank you. happy writing to you. happy reporting. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> tonight on c-span2, interviews with two nonfiction authors. 8:00 p.m. eastern, the author of hitler's theories, when the lower is the author. and the pulitzer prize winning author rick atkinson who has written books about world war ii.

>> wouldn't make any difference -- well, we began to ask that. we decided it did make a difference. that means that they were out there scavenging for votes and they had to deal with the people, as opposed to a state legislature, there are 26 members of the state senate, all you need is 14 votes and you can easily pay off, and they did, indeed, pay off in some cases. by paying off their mortgages in a couple of victorious cases. >> more with richard baker on sunday night at 8:00 p.m. on c-span's "q&a." >> a group of journalists recently decided a number of cases decided by the supreme court. we will hear from supreme court

reporters from the washington times, associated press, and other news organizations. this is one hour and a half. >> i am art fisher. i work for the aclu. i welcome you to the 25th annual supreme court press gallery panel. thank you all for coming today. the panel is sponsored by court lawyers and the administration of justice. which is one of 20 sections of this. it concentrates on matters pertaining to court administration and court rules in the relationship between the bench and the bar. all aspects of a lawyer's relationship, including ethics and discipline and admissions standards and focuses on improving access to courts.

in the little yellow programs, you can see the names of 10 other sections that are cosponsors. as you can see from the list, i won't name them all. they range over most areas of legal practice, then there is another nine sections that aren't cosponsored. if you are an aspiring member of the bar, keep in mind for when you become a member. i think the coordinating event coordinators for the use of their logistical facility and all of the arrangements that have taken place between the dc bar and c-span. we got us all set up here today, and as you noticed, there is a camera in the back that wants to

c-span. i believe that we are being simulcast and you will also be able to watch this again later if you have such an interest. especially if we rebroadcast this at 430 in the morning. [applause] >> we will have time for a question and answer session at the end. but if you don't want to be on national tv, then you either don't ask a question or you put a bag over your head. we will be privilege this afternoon to talk about the total of 101 years. and we will have some seniority when we introduce everyone here.

tony mauro has covered the national watcher journal and he has been covering the court since 1979. first for usa today and then for a washington legal times. after they merged with the national law journal, he continued to be there is a supreme court correspondent. his college degree is from rockers and his journalism degree from harvard. and adam liptak has been covering the court since 1986. he is the author of a book on the supreme court and there is a legal commentary on national public radio's talk of the nation. he has also recently offered a recent edition of quarterly

guides to the supreme court. he comes from pittsburgh and has degrees from the university of north carolina and northwestern university. joan biskupic, who is identified easily by gender, covers the supreme court for reuters. she was the first to cover the lincoln assassination. [laughter] >> we are not telling her age. no, kidding. she covered the court since 1989. she covered the court for usa today and she covered for "the washington post." along the way she earned her jd degree at georgetown law school. she specializes in judicial biography and this included influential justice and after that she worked for justice antony scalia. she is now working on a book

involving justice sinusoidal sonja sotomayor. and this person is robert barnes. he has been planning to go to law school but changed his mind after taking a journalism class at the university of florida and he never looked back. his biography on "the washington post" website says that, and i think that he wrote us. he said that it is not appear to him that he could do both. that perhaps a better explanation is that he realized that he didn't need three years of law school to not practice law. and david savage began covering the associated press in 200,000 has been with us since 2005 and

he is a graduate of ole miss, university of mississippi, where he was editor of the daily mississippian. his first book is blackmun felt the capital on the african-american history in and around washington dc. he may have to go ahead and talk about his book. and the last but not least is adam liptak, hoover started as a copy boy in 1984 when he returned for a law degree in 1988. for a while he was in the

in-house legal department telling them what they couldn't do, but it later became a topic where he studied law and was a lawyer's assistant. his work has also appealed to the new yorker and other publications. looking at "the new york times", i saw a full-page ad announcing his brand-new book, which is being public the week from today. and it is called "to have and uphold." it is about same-sex marriage and the fight for it. i heard you divide today. okay, one more preliminary note, which is there should be an evaluation form from the dc bar. and maybe someone can distribute

those. i'm going to sit down and join the panelists. let's start talking about last week at the court. the court saved all big of its cases. the affordable care act came down last week. tony, would you like to start? >> actually, somehow i don't think so. but it seems like there is so much intends insanity.

i think that some of the similar organizations have new procedures and in fact, we now have the running of the interns were interns were copping the decisions about her broadcast reporters on the plaza, so that they can actually take a look at the decisions before they reported, which is something that didn't happen last year. >> the decisions were rolled out one at a time, at least, and that made this a little bit easier. we were all worried that two of the huge ones would come on the same day.

>> you think that they actually care about you when they decide to do it that way? >> no. [applause] i think that when they are done, they are done. that is when they released him. i think pretty much when they are done is when they released them. and they don't care about how it makes our lives difficult. he met maybe someone somewhere with the margins is looking out for us. >> i think sometimes the public information is part of this.

i do think that it makes accommodation for the press. they ordered over 200 pages of opinions, and we asked them politely not to do that again. [laughter] and of course the classic answer was, well, nothing says that you have to report about them all at once. why don't you save some for the next day, showing a complete lack of understanding about how journalism works. but anyway, since then, they haven't really done that to us again.

>> they had statements to make and they have their own self interest of trying to get the news out there in a way that is timely and that we can actually read. >> i feel like i ran across a memo with a law professor at stanford for the justice of whom she is clerking, hairy blackmun. it was sent on a friday. and that you should wait until monday to release this. >> have they ever handed down decisions on a friday? >> apparently.

>> i work at usa today. if you got news on a friday in the old days, there was a big publisher. maybe once or twice. but now, usually this week and this year, it comes out on wednesday. >> you have to talk about how much of the stories you can write in advance or not there are so many different versions that you can write that you want. as many different versions as you want. [laughter] we normally write at least two different versions. one that the court has upheld a lower ruling.

so we always start with the least two. and then you hope that the court and everything else you write after that, but it will actually do one of those things. one of our greatest fears is when there is a plurality decision. because then you have to figure out which part did they actually agreed to or what that decision guys. so this year, i think that we actually -- i think we actually could use a version that we have prewritten. in the past, i think i said this last year, for health care we had at least eight different stories just guessing what the court was going to do. and we picked the correct one. [laughter] i think this year we only had to do about it -- you hope you get

the right one to send out as fast as you can. >> i think quite a few of us are now on the same business that jesse was in. when i first started, you had time to read the opinion and listen to the defense and go down and think about it. but now i think a lot of us are in the business of having to file something in about five or 10 minutes. with proposition eight, it was of great interest in california on that. so i had about five different versions. and it worked out okay because one of the versions was basically what they did. i basically said that i read it to the editor and they put it right up on the website right away. so i think that this is another reason that this year when better for lives because this is simply routine now. >> that's right. >> doesn't make a difference to that? you know, a lot of people are now sitting at their desk

watching the live blog and in fact, i have bumped into burt lyons, who has argued this at the university of texas, a week before they came down. i asked if you are going to to be coming to court every day to watch the decisions and he said no, i will watch the blog. does as i taken the pressure off of you guys to get the news out fast? because those who really wanted instantaneously can get it that way? >> for us, it is a different audience. they serve a different audience. we actually have our own twitter site. that is where we do pretty much the same thing. but that blog serves the audience well, but it is a completely different audience. >> they are competitors. the response to competition is to say that they are doing a pretty good job. so it's not too hard with our

job. >> the audience might be interested to learn how they do it. people people who visited the court know that no electronics are allowed inside the courtroom. so this includes how he does his live blog from the courts. >> i don't think a lot of live blogs that have been done this year are really live. i think that it is the case where someone goes and listens to a lot of the oral argument. at least, that is where most of these have happened. listen to the oral argument and then they come out and they write it as though it was a live blog where so-and-so said this in the next person said this. it's that kind of feel that readers on the web like. but it is not where we exactly

see it in the current way. >> we are making arguments and we are making arguments in the nondecision days, they were looking at and analyzing it as quickly as they could. a bunch of us, including "the new york times", used some of the materials. david, you mentioned that there was obviously great interest in the proposition eight decision in california. you're writing for the l.a. times and the "chicago tribune." you do this? >> i sure didn't have time to do two different stories. it is the case that the l.a. times is much more interested in getting something up on the website. >> did you also find someone

else got the angle? where did you get that angle? >> i found that they kind of got the path cleared for gay marriage in california. people were not that interested in standing and explaining the standing grounds. but the fact is that they decided the case in a way that left judge walker's opinion and that meant gay marriage. i then speculates -- they put back in the hands of the california officials. kamala harris and jerry brown were very committed to see gay marriage go away. that is basically what happened. >> he talked about writing stories in advance.

one story was the one about breast cancer, whether or not the medicine could be patented. there were lots of scientific technicalities in that case. lots of briefs by scientists and patent lawyers. justice scalia said i am not competent to figure all this stuff out. how much did you guys become experts in the genes and patent law? >> tony is smiling.

>> i guess the concurrence is such a rare expression. [laughter] is the burden of the parties. the justices understand all of the technicalities of science and they don't do a good job. it has an impact on the court. >> i would say that we are not an expert of anything. but the great thing, and the reason all of us enjoy it and probably the reason you enjoy being lawyers is because it is a constant rotation of issues that come before you that you are learning about.

it was almost like being back in college that is what makes it such a great job. you are always learning about this. >> i am talking about the supreme court's quality work. we are writing the supreme court times and in quality format. >> justice scalia said i cannot figure this stuff out and literally like three sentences.

>> supreme court justices say, i don't know about him come about we get it. it is that we can include anything in the story, that humanizes these folks, we are had. >> that's correct. chief justice roberts also talks about the lack of knowledge that his circuit speech on saturday. involve the definition of the word deallocation. and i notice that he said he was surprised that he had never heard this case that was before the court.

they made this decision and they ruled on the. >> it has to do with the definition of a vessel. did anyone record that decision? >> is in regards reading that story? [laughter] >> it was in the school of reasoning. >> he came down early. you know, people should realize

this includes rulings on gay rights and rachel stuff as well. so i hope that they realize that. >> i'm surprised to learn in san francisco bay and seattle. they get electricity. and it is very important to them as to whether they are classified as a vessel or house on these boats are there a lot of people that have a very important decision to say what is the difference between a boat and the house that is on the water. >> the entire team industry is worked up about it because all of these casinos were covered in the biggest case.

[laughter] >> the court went into great detail. this thing had french was instead of portholes and i was important to the justice am a justice schreier, and justice kennedy and justice sotomayor dissented. >> yes. >> let's talk about that for a minute. did any of you speculate in print or are we more into speculating orley? >> let's just remind everyone that this cleared the way with gay marriage and california. including the standing of the pellet level and according to the chief justice, the court

said no. but the robert barnes split came the same day we saw very clearly which five justices decided on the elimination of doma, and that was the predictable line of justice kennedy writing to the majority, was joined by for more justices. but then the standing on prop-8, i think that we can all intellectually agree that they were supporting the standing issue. and i think it sends a signal that the liberal justices are not ready at this point to say anything definitive about gay marriage rights. >> i think that their hands will be forced when they do it.

>> we struck it down in 1967 when they were 16 states left. >> that is tough to get to. because most of the states make it so that they can't. they overturn a constitutional amendments in states that don't want to do it, it's going to be a lot harder thing as far as getting a law passed. >> you know, i think that that is what the proponents want to

do. the federal courts are as sympathetic as the ninth circuit was. i think the inevitability is you have to come from the supreme court. >> their sentiment and so much change. there is a majority of americans now who support gay marriage. and only among the 65 and above group strongly opposes itself. it was one of the hard things and that change continues at this rate. it may be faster than we would

have guessed. >> is going to be three or four years to accept that. because i think despite various quarters in states that don't yet allow marriage, they are going to be filing a ton of lawsuits in the next six months. the federal circuit is going to declare that the constitution refuse them a marriage license and they will have a hard time not taking the case. >> i think that is exactly right. justice kennedy's opinion has a lot of words. once you have struck down doma and talk about equal protection and equal dignity of same-sex couples, well, what is the explanation. if you are a federal judge were some states say this, what is the justification for that fairly strong claim of equal protection. i would think that that is that

some judges are going to say this is a equal protection matter. >> if you look at his decision, he actually says that exact same thing. [laughter] >> well, but then the chief justice, john roberts, he says no.

that the federal law had to fall because marriage a matter for states. you can see how you make the opposite argument if states don't want same-sex marriage, federalism principles suggest they don't have to have it. >> and justice ken i kennedy rejected the argument from the bureaucracies. the administration wanted. in fact the standard isn't really crystal clear. it's sort of a federalism plaza equal protection slightly higher but not up to heightened for any other audience which is what they are they talk abouting. yop know it matters and this is what is going to matter. t sub standard legal work. you cannot tell which standard they are using o